Captain Hero
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 659
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
You see wikipedia doesn't say that 9/11 was done by KFC and Ernie Dingo but I know otherwise
In discussion it's fine. In academic papers it isn't.Iron said:What? I still cringe whenever I see people quoting wiki for anything, ever
who say plants need sunlight just light, that is all that matters.
i dont even lol anymoreKwayera said:I loled, and then couldn't be bothered.
Seriously, this was in year 8 science. Does that just go in one ear and out the other?
hahah, well I cringe every time people say "I haven't heard of them" with some sort of authority.Iron said:What? I still cringe whenever I see people quoting wiki for anything, ever
I concur with this KFunk - as I do with pretty much everything you say.KFunk said:I don't think it's bad practice to say that science merely 'claims'. One of the great strengths of science is that it shies away from absolute claims and is open to revision if the right evidence comes along. Science doesn't say 'believe X because it is a fact', but rather says 'believe X because it is the most warranted belief based on our current state of knowledge'.
We've visited this point time and time again in this thread but it's often worth another go.emytaylor164 said:Just because there is nothing that you consider proof that God exists, there is nothing that disproves it either?
I think this is the crux of the matter of the matter for me. I can't see at all how this reasoning is an atheistic or theistic argument. It's an agnostic response, so I don't know why I see people on either side of the fence use it as a sort of proof in their argument. I mean sure - the atheist can always say that we don't believe in fairies etc, but I find it extremely concerning if this is the only reasoning they have for dismissing a belief in god.KFunk said:It's fair enough to say that you can't justify complete rejection (endorsement of 'X does not exist') on the basis of nil evidence. You can, however, very easily justify refused acceptance, that is, a refusal to assent to the proposition 'X exists'.
What you fail to see is that to be an agnostic is also often to be an atheist, just not a 'strong atheist' - To simply lack a belief in God generally makes you an atheist.BradCube said:It's an agnostic response
The fact is that even someone who says they're agnostic about God generally must admit that by the same token they are also only agnostic of fairies. There is no special disconnection between God and a fairy, they are both things which by their definitions we can't prove/disprove.BradCube said:I mean sure - the atheist can always say that we don't believe in fairies etc, but I find it extremely concerning if this is the only reasoning they have for dismissing a belief in god.
Unfortunately, I just don't buy that definition of atheism. It just seems to be agnosticism renamed. Plus, it doesn't really say all that much since I honestly can't help but see it as a psychological description. Under that definition a huge number of things could be named atheists - newborn babies, dogs and even inanimate objects such as pencils and pens. Does their lack of belief in God also make them atheists? Similarly, could a theist say, "my lack of disbelief in God is what characterizes me as a theist"?Enteebee said:What you fail to see is that to be an agnostic is also often to be an atheist, just not a 'strong atheist' - To simply lack a belief in God generally makes you an atheist.
Well, sure - but I don't think many people have troubles dismissing fairies for two reasons:Enteebee said:The fact is that even someone who says they're agnostic about God generally must admit that by the same token they are also only agnostic of fairies. There is no special disconnection between God and a fairy, they are both things which by their definitions we can't prove/disprove.
No, a theist could not say that.BradCube said:Unfortunately, I just don't buy that definition of atheism. It just seems to be agnosticism renamed. Plus, it doesn't really say all that much since I honestly can't help but see it as a psychological description. Under that definition a huge number of things could be named atheists - newborn babies, dogs and even inanimate objects such as pencils and pens. Does their lack of belief in God also make them atheists? Similarly, could a theist say, "my lack of disbelief in God is what characterizes me as a theist"?
I think it's silly to deny this definition, by doing so you basically deny the right for any thinking individual to assert something as existing/not existing. There are very few considered individuals out there that claim to know anything with 100% certainty. If I throw 100,000 reindeer off a building this doesn't mean I know for certain that they do not fly... but I will wear the tag of a a-flying-reindeerist. Am I forever to hold myself as agnostic on this matter? For common-language purposes I do not believe reindeer can fly. Agnosticism is an epistemological position.Unfortunately, I just don't buy that definition of atheism. It just seems to be agnosticism renamed. Plus, it doesn't really say all that much since I honestly can't help but see it as a psychological description. Under that definition a huge number of things could be named atheists - newborn babies, dogs and even inanimate objects such as pencils and pens. Does their lack of belief in God also make them atheists?
The problem is that there's a very big difference between someone who lacks disbelief in god and someone who believes in god. Someone who lacks disbelief can not accept jesus or pray to any god or believe they're going to heaven when they die. It is a much larger divide than the divide between someone who doesn't believe in god and someone who lacks a belief in god, both of these opinions seem toSimilarly, could a theist say, "my lack of disbelief in God is what characterizes me as a theist"?
The same is true for God.1. There is no reason at all to assume they do or do not exist (we have no idea what evidence we should even expect to find if they did exist).
This doesn't matter and I'm not sure if it's right anyway.2. There is no dramatic conclusions or consequences whether they do or do/do not exist, and so choosing to believe they exist or not becomes a non-issue since either conclusion makes no difference.
You've still yet to provide a solid reason why I shouldn't dismiss God for the same reason as fairies, until you produce your evidence or whatever... but I thought you were agreeing with KFunk's statement?Personally, I still stand by my original statement and would be very concerned if anyone thought it wise to dismiss God in the same way one might dismiss fairies. Surely if there is even the possibility that God exists, that alone warrants the effort to try and uncover the truth of the matter.
This is a common misconception. The position which holds that it is impossible to know is simply one type of agnosticism. The common claim across different brands of agnosticism is that we don't know either way (not that it is impossible to know - a belief which characterises strong agnosticism).Graustein said:I would argue that to be agnostic does NOT mean that you are likely to be atheist. Such a statement shows ignorance of what agnosticism means. To be agnostic is to accept that it is impossible to know something for certain (at least with our current abilities), in this case God's existance.
I stand corrected.KFunk said:This is a common misconception. The position which holds that it is impossible to know is simply one type of agnosticism. The common claim across different brands of agnosticism is that we don't know either way (not that it is impossible to know - a belief which characterises strong agnosticism).